Reconsidering Social Work 100 Years Post-Flexner: Where Are We Now, Where Are We Headed, What Has Been Gained, What Has Been Lost?

ABSTRACT

A century has passed since Abraham Flexner deemed social work not to be a profession, and the field finds itself once again in a moment of questioning and redefining its nature, objectives, methods, and standing among the professions and in the academy. In this introduction we revisit Flexner’s influential speech, review some of the critical issues facing social work today, and highlight the contributions of the 15 social work educators from schools all across the country, experts in social work research, practice, policy, and education, as they consider what social work has been, where it stands today, and what it should be as we look to the future.

As we mark the centenary of the speech at the National Conference of Charities and Correction in which educator and education critic Abraham Flexner (1915/2001) announced that social work is not a profession, we find ourselves once again at a critical juncture regarding the nature, objectives, and methods of social work. In this speech, which we encourage reading in its entirety, Flexner stated:

The term profession, strictly used, as opposed to business or handicraft, is a title of peculiar distinction, coveted by many activities… . But to make a profession in the genuine sense, something more than a mere claim or an academic degree is needed. (pp. 152–153)

Flexner (1915/2001) acknowledged the difficulty of defining the term profession and decided to form his criteria by generalizing from what he described as “a few professions universally admitted to be such—law, medicine, and preaching” (pp. 153–154). He later added architecture, engineering, university teaching, literature, painting, and music.

Flexner (1915/2001) characterizes a profession as “intellectual and learned” and also “definitely practical … becoming increasingly altruistic in motivation” (p. 155). On this latter ground he disqualifies plumbing as “prosecuted too largely for the plumber’s profit. It is therefore a handicraft, not a profession” and banking as “too largely empirical to square with the modern conception of professionalism … a trade with certain professional learnings.” He similarly dismisses any claim of pharmacists to professionalism but declines to categorize nursing one way or another. The last part of Flexner’s speech considers social work, where he delivers a mixed verdict, arguing that the field of social work in his time suffered from a deficit of professionalism in its publications (which he characterized as journalistic rather than scientific) and relied on “volunteer or underpaid service” (p. 163). That very last part at least sounds familiar.

Flexner’s (1915/2001) speech is a fascinating time capsule that provides a sense not just of Flexner’s particular insecurities (he was an influential educator and writer on education without ever having completed an advanced degree) but also of the unstated assumptions of the era. And Flexner’s demarcations do not entirely align with the social classes, as illustrated in his inclusion of engineering and the arts among the professions and his exclusion of banking and social work, which he presents as a form of philanthropy, conducted in many instances by well-meaning upper-class friendly visitors.

It would be easy—and pointless—to argue against Flexner’s (1915/2001) dismissive attitude toward social work’s professionalism. Given the many changes in the past century, there is little reason to worry about the field’s professional standards as they were in 1915, but the devaluation of our field and our manifold ways of refuting the snub and endeavoring to prove it meritless continue to reverberate to this day.

For example, there is increasing pressure within the academy to conduct externally funded research so that some types of inquiry are privileged over others (Belcher, Pecukonis, & Knight, 2011; Johnson & Munch, 2010; Mackie, 2013). This view of what is worthy and worthwhile knowledge affects which journals in and outside the field are acceptable. Again, certain methods and objects of inquiry are privileged over others (Green, 2008; Green & Baskind, 2007).

In response to this, social work programs moved toward a model of doctoral training that fits this academic landscape and therefore encouraged research and publication at the inevitable expense of practice experience (Abell & Wolf, 2003; Auslander, Fisher, Ollie, & Yu, 2012; Fong, 2012; Jenson, 2008). As one of our contributors to this issue, Tyriesa Howard, writes, we may now be seeing a response to this in the rise of DSW programs.

Nevertheless, because of this increased pressure to obtain grants and publish, understood by some as an effort by social work to be viewed as a legitimate academic discipline (Wheeler & Gibbons, 1992), many junior faculty enter the academy with little practice experience in any area, whether clinical social work, community organizing, or organizational management and leadership. For example, the Council on Social Work Education’s (CSWE, 2008) Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards required faculty who teach social work practice to have an MSW degree from a CSWE-accredited program and at least 2 years of social work practice experience. However, this standard is less stringent than previous ones; 2 years or more of post-MSW practice experience were required in 1994 (CSWE, 2008). Indeed, research institutions seeking new faculty are less likely to require an MSW degree or post-MSW experience compared to nonresearch (comprehensive/liberal arts) institutions (Mackie, 2013).

The focus on research in doctoral training contributes to a lack of full-time, tenure-track professors able to use their own experience in teaching social work practice in research methods, motivating the development of the separate and unequal academic path of adjunct or clinical faculty. In a survey of deans and directors of BSW and MSW programs, 72% of respondents perceived there was an insufficient number of candidates with a doctoral and professional social work degree to teach BSW and MSW students (Zastrow & Bremner, 2004, p. 353).

Concerns have been raised in the field about an overall reduction in student exposure to professors with practice experience of any type, and there is an especially clear disconnect in clinical social work practice when 85% of MSW students state their intent to engage in direct practice with clients (Johnson & Munch, 2010). This gap in training can eventually translate into gaps in supervision, because these very graduates will become supervisors within 2 to 3 years (Cousins, 2004). These kinds of gaps in the training of our profession’s future workforce and management has potentially profound implications for policy, practice, service provision, and organizational leadership—in short, in every aspect of our profession.

Thus, we felt that the centenary of Flexner’s (1915/2001) report was an apposite moment for us to explore the current state of our profession as experienced by a range of social work educators who are experts in various methods and fields from different types of institutions across the country. This special issue posed the question of what is gained and what is lost in the current conceptualization of social work’s organizing values, primary objectives, and newly valued methods of achieving them.

We have invited leading figures in social work research, practice, policy, and education to consider what social work has been, where it stands today, and what it should be as we look to the future. In our call for articles we received dozens of worthy submissions. This question of who we are and where we are clearly caught the attention of social workers not just in the United States but around the world. We endeavored to select a range of viewpoints addressing critical contemporary issues in our field such as evidence-based practice, technology, licensing, education, and antioppressive practice.

Invited articles

Emilia E. Martínez-Brawley and Paz M–B Zorita’s article, “Philosophic Thinking in Social Work: An Analysis of 30 Years of Social Work Editorials,” “reviews the emergence of scientific thinking in social work and links it to the persistent influence of Flexner’s thinking and critique of 1915 in the minds of scholars” (p. S6). They review the intellectual and scholarly unfolding of the profession and its impact on practice and education and contend that although philosophic thinking is not predictive, it strongly influences how the human condition is understood.

In “Shifting the Social Work Practice Paradigm: The Contribution of the Interactional Model,” Lawrence Shulman discusses the tension between different paradigms of social work practice and how the medical model of assessment, treatment planning, and intervention is being replaced by an interactional model that is centered on the client’s active participation. Shulman traces this change during the past half century and argues that this interactional model is consistent with evidence-based practice.

Carol Tosone’s “Clincial Social Work Practice and Education: What Would Flexner Think Now?” returns to Flexner’s (1915/2001) question of whether social work is a profession, considering how different national and international organizations define the academic field and practice of social work. She points to the status of clinical social work, which is in some places defined as an application of general social work principles and elsewhere considered a separate profession. Tosone concludes that social work serves so many diverse goals that some fuzziness in its definition is inevitable.

In “Implementation Science: Why It Matters for the Future of Social Work,” Leopoldo J. Cabassa addresses the interaction between empirical research and clinical practice, asking what it would take for social workers in the community to catch up with “the best available science and knowledge base that should be informing their practices” (p. S38). Cabassa suggests that the process of knowledge transfer should itself be the object of study, that this “implementation science” (p. 11) can help educators and policy makers make a difference.

W. Patrick Sullivan’s “Leadership in Social Work: Where Are We?” underscores the evolution of leadership as a distinct function within the discipline. He draws attention to the difference between leadership and management and its implications for contemporary organizational practice in diverse human service organizations. Sullivan identifies client-centered leadership as the approach to organizational functioning, influence, and growth that best embodies the mission and purpose of the profession.

Contemporary issues

Elizabeth King Keenan’s “Applying Research to Enhance Capacity: A Unifying Purpose for an Integrated Profession” serves to confirm social work’s historical commitment to individual treatment and social reform while simultaneously encouraging the profession to move toward the integrative perspective of the person-in-situation gestalt. In her article, Keenan summarizes the factors that influence how the dual purpose, identified as individual well-being and social justice, manifests itself within the profession, outlines a vision for integration, fleshes out the vision using research on complex adaptive systems and Aristotle’s character virtues and practical judgment, and describes the role of social work education in implementing this vision.

In “Plurality and Fragmentation in Social Work: Analyzing the Implications of Flexner Using a Philosophy of Science Perspective,” Shane R. Brady and David Moxley argue that because social work is not a “unitary profession” (p. S75), there is correspondingly no unified narrative of the field, which in turn stands in the way of full professionalism, at least in Flexner’s sense of requiring a common knowledge base and approach. Brady points out how the comparison with medicine has affected the relative status of different approaches in social work, and he suggests that the field of social work can only be understood by recognizing the different paradigms under which social workers function.

Mimi Abramowitz and Margaret S. Sherraden’s “Case to Cause: Back to the Future” situates changes in the social work profession within the changes in the surrounding political environment, arguing that social work could be more effective in the current economic and political climate if there were more of a focus on macro issues, that is, attacking the social causes of poverty and stress rather than narrowly working on a case-by-case basis.

In “Digital Native Meet Friendly Visitor: A Flexner-Inspired Call to Digital Action,” Lauri Goldkind suggests that ongoing concerns about the unprofessionalism of social work could be addressed using information and communication technology, which she says could allow “dialogue among social workers, between agencies, and across practice areas” (p. S103). This idea of technology integration contrasts in interesting ways with Brady’s argument that those in social work should recognize the profession’s different and perhaps incommensurable branches.

In “Is Social Work Evidence Based? Does Saying So Make It So? Ongoing Challenges in Integrating Research, Practice and Policy” Eileen Gambrill points out some uncomfortable facts: “Most social work interventions … have not been critically tested in terms of their effects… . information about what is offered to clients … is usually too vague to be informative … practices promoted and used are often not those that are best” (p. S111). She concludes that social work has been “slow to draw on empirical literature” and recommends that social work leaders and educators focus on direct goals, for example “providing each child in school with a high quality education” rather than professional-seeming activities such as setting up wellness centers in schools (p. S120).

In “Recasting Licensing in Social Work: Something More for Professionalism,” Erlene Grise–Owens, Larry W. Owens, and Justin Jay Miller discuss the historical role of licensing in social work and suggest “recasting social work’s professional paradigm in the common framework of competency” (p. 2) as a way of clarifying social work’s goals and activities. This suggestion is somewhat parallel to that of Gambrill’s in that licensing and competency must still be grounded in social work’s ultimate objectives to foster a more equal society that can take into account each individual’s struggles and strengths.

Rani Varghese’s “Teaching to Transform? Addressing Race and Racism in the Teaching of Social Work Practice” considers the interaction between clinical social work education research and practice on the topic of race and racism. This piece describes a qualitative study of several clinical social work faculty members, the results of which suggest that faculty have difficulty covering race and racism in the classroom.

As renewed attention in the public and academic spheres on issues of race and social justice in the wake of the death of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement indicates, this challenge is not unique to social work, but social workers have the knowledge, values, and skills to exert leadership in this area.

Looking to the next 100 years, we end with “PhD Versus DSW: A Critique of Trends in Social Work Doctoral Education.” Tyriesa Howard discusses the changing norms of professionalism in social work by considering the differences between the PhD and DSW degrees and how the meanings of these degrees have changed over the past 100 years. Graduate education serves multiple goals, including providing practical training, exposure to theory and research, and, at the doctoral level, an opportunity to learn the tools and attitudes of research and to expand the frontiers of knowledge. Tensions between immediate and more general goals are inevitable, and these are reflected in variation over time and across educational institutions.

Our discipline has been marked by change and adaptation. Much of the social work of the 21st century would surely be unrecognizable to Abraham Flexner (1915/2001), whose general framework and specific examples appear to be time bound and a bit quaint today. But concerns about the social status and the intellectual foundations of social work and the interplay between theory, research, education, and practice remain relevant today. Hence, we trust that the articles compiled for this special issue serve to generate important conversations as we continue to develop and enrich our profession.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Caroline Rosenthal Gelman

Caroline Rosenthal Gelman is Associate Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs and an Associate Professor at the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College, City University of New York. Manny González is an Associate Professor and Director of the MSW Program at the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College; Associate Professor at the Graduate Center, City University of New York.

Manny J. González

Caroline Rosenthal Gelman is Associate Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs and an Associate Professor at the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College, City University of New York. Manny González is an Associate Professor and Director of the MSW Program at the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College; Associate Professor at the Graduate Center, City University of New York.